The BitKeeper non-compete clause

Posted Oct 10, 2002 2:49 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313)
Parent article: The BitKeeper non-compete clause

Also the non-compete clause only applies to the FREE use of bitkeeper, if you pay for a licence this doesn't apply to you at all (although if you purchase a licence and then write a program that works very like bitkeeper you can probably expect a lawsuit about copying it's look-and-feel)

In addition Larry has stated that he has already issued some waivers to kernel developers who work for companies that develop SCM systems to allow them to continue useing bitkeeper for kernel development.

The BitKeeper non-compete clause

Posted Oct 10, 2002 4:17 UTC (Thu) by Ross (guest, #4065) [Link]

Larry seems to be quite reasonable on granting exceptions
to this clause in the license for those who aren't working
on version control software. So pragmatically, this isn't a
problem right now.

But we should all realize we are relying on BM's good will
and that is less than optimal. I would suggest that the
kernel developers should avoid becoming overly dependent
on BK or any other product outside of our control.

In fact, this whole thing reminds me of another problem:
Putting way too many open source eggs in SourceForge's basket.

The BitKeeper non-compete clause

Posted Oct 10, 2002 5:56 UTC (Thu) by fyodor (guest, #3481) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, this restriction supposedly only applies to the free version. But Larry can easily exclude people he doesn't like from the paid version via discriminatory pricing. Note how he immediately threatens lawsuits when someone posts the BK pricelist. Even if the pricing was not discriminatory, few open source hackers have an extra $5,800 lying around for a single-user Bitkeeper license. So if you are or ever want to be a kernel hacker, Larry wants you to think long and hard before contributing that little Subversion or CVS patch. It is true that you can still "work around" using Bitkeeper for kernel development, but Linus seems to be encouraging its use more and more.

I for one plan to resist this bogus, anticompetitive license. I am surprised the LWN article treaded so lightly. I wonder what they would have written if the MS EULA was changed to exclude developers of competing operating systems? I am currently developing the Nmap Security Scanner[plug], but I hope to find time to help with Subversion as well. The best way to fight BK is to write a compelling replacement. My best wishes go out to those who are already doing such admirable work!

-Fyodor

The BitKeeper non-compete clause

Posted Oct 10, 2002 6:50 UTC (Thu) by alan (guest, #4018) [Link]

From the link you gave, Linus was not encouraging BK's use at all. In fact he mentioned that the ACPI team was trying to use it and didn't quite get it right, ( and says that the ALSA patch was even more difficult to deal with).
He seems to be concerned about technical excellence, not licensing issues.
That's fine with me.

As for the price of licensing, I once sat down with Oracle in a series of meetings and asked for a price quote. I got $800,000 quoted for the project I was working on. My coworkers and I sat down and reviewed everything in detail, and when we were finished, the quote was $200,000. I can understand why Larry wouldn't like his prices spread about. Every negotiation is a consists of haggling out a deal. Posting his numbers will just scare off potential customers that he may be able to give discounts to in exchange for the probable future customers.

Fyodor, thank you for your work on nmap. It is unquestionably the best.